CNN Uses DMCA Against Parody

Anonymous Coward writes "Big corporate media also likes to use the DMCA to shut down web sites. Here is a blogger site which is under threat from CNN. CNN wants to shut down The National Debate becuase of a one web page parody."

Parody

[keiferb]

IANAL, obviously. Isn't parody protected under some sort of constitution something-or-other?

Listen...

[Your_Mom]

You can hear the liberal slashdotters' heads asplode...

"DMCA bad.... but... site... pro-Bush... ack... who should I side with... aaaah... *pop*"

To be ontopic, here are some mirrors of the parody in question:

Mirror 1 [moorelies.com]
Mirror B [tjic.com]
Third Mirror [billhobbs.com]
Mirror Cuatro [69.60.104.4]

Re:Listen...

[Anonymous Coward]

"DMCA bad.... but... site... pro-Bush... ack... who should I side with... aaaah... *pop*"

"I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".

No conflict here.

Re:Listen...

[Mr. Slippery]

You can hear the liberal slashdotters' heads asplode...

Um, no. A true liberal beleives in free speech for everyone, even those he or she disagrees with. Thus you find the ACLU defending the free speech rights of the KKK and neo-Nazi groups.

However, it's worth noting that this parody seems to have directly copied the CNN content, including the logo, genuine CNN headlines, and even a CNN copyright notice. There are some valid issue heres - but they could be easily remidied by the parodiest (by making up

Re:Listen...

[Your_Mom]

Um, no. A true liberal beleives in free speech for everyone, even those he or she disagrees with.

A true US citizen believes that as well (as I do, and I'm 'conservative'). I wasn't trying to make a blanket statement about liberals, I was cracking a joke about the rabid-liberal-ABB crowd that seems to inhabit /.

Quite frankly, while the text is mildly amusing, overall the joke is about a 5/10

Re:Listen...

[Fnkmaster]

And add to that a disclaimer on the bottom of the page indicating that it's a parody - the same thing that magazines will often to do distinguish a parody as such from their normal content (unless they happen to be a humor magazine where the content can be assumed to be parody). Yes, parody should be an affirmative defense to trademark infringement (although copyright infringement is less clear, I believe the protection parody provides in that case is substantially weaker). But no, that doesn't just mean

Re:Listen...

[booch]

Thanks for the mirrors. Now that I've seen the page in question, I think CNN has some legitimate claims. Sure the article is parody, but it's not clear until you start reading the text. Just looking at the rest of the page, it is a complete copy of CNN's site. I think the National Debate did copy a bit too much to be covered by the parody exception.

As for liberals having to decide whether this is good or bad, I think liberals are much more likely than conservatives to stand up for what they believe even wh

Re:Listen...

[A1kmm]

CNN is not losing anything from the parody, no matter how close it is to the original site(assuming it is a parody). They are merely using copyright law to suppress criticism.

The real loser here, regardless of who you support, is the general public. The rich minority controls the press, the executive and legislative governments of many countries, and they use their wealth to threaten lawsuits and suppress anything they don't like even in the absence of any legitimate case.

Re:Listen...

[Alsee]

You can hear the liberal slashdotters' heads asplode...
"DMCA bad.... but... site... pro-Bush... ack... who should I side with... aaaah... *pop*"

I may disagree with what you say, but I defend to the death your right to say it. That is a sentiment seen all too rarely from the right.

Need I remind you that "liberal" groups such as the ACLU defend not only the KKK and NAMBLA, they actually wend to far as to defend RUSH LIMBAUGH! One of the most conservative ALCU bashers there is.

While I dissagree with the si

It's okay...

[Anonymous Coward]

From the takedown notice:

Under penalty of perjury, I hereby declare that this Notice is accurate

So this Kari L. Moeller lawyer will be done for perjury, right? Right? That's the only way to discourage these types of harrassments.

DMCA and Trademarks?

[Col. Klink (retired)]

I thought the Digital Millenium COPYRIGHT Act dealt with Copyright infringement, not Trademark violations. So is CNN claiming that they actually wrote the parody story?

I don't think the DMCA gives them any take-down rights over Trademark disputes.

Re:DMCA and Trademarks?

[bradkittenbrink]

I think they're claiming they own the images, which are pretty clearly ripped right from cnn.com

wait...

[BigChigger]

but CNN is a bastion of liberalism. You mean a liberal organization is violating someones free speach rights! But that can't be! According to all the liberals, they would never do anything like this!!

BC

Re:wait...

[Jahf]

This was modded insightful? Saracastic perhaps, but even then it is redundant to other posts.

Anyway ... strange thing is that while I'm a liberal (not capitalized and I'm a Libertarian more than a Democrat), I read the page and saw it as a jab at -both- candidates fairly equally.

CNN is biased, I agree (though no more so than Fox News, and to my mind less so). However I think if this page had been a rip-off of CBS, NBC, ABC or perhaps even Fox they would have probably had the same from the hip legal attitu

Re:wait...

[stinerman]

Its all relative, my good friend.

I find all US media conservative. I know people who think FOX News is liberal (you know they do have that Colmes fellow on there).

As previously mentioned, true liberals defend free speech at all costs. Most of what passes for liberalism (and conservatism) these days is simply partisan loyalty.

Re:wait...

[Fnkmaster]

To be fair, a corporation is obliged to their shareholders to protect their trademarks, since if they don't, they stand to lose rights to them. Now, agreed, this is a parody which should be protected, but according to many other posters, this item was too deceptively similar to a real CNN story, and 95% of the HTML was verbatim copied from CNN, and apparently there was no obvious notice or demarcation of the parody itself.

The rights to parody are limited. Before you run a parody of a large, popular bran

Where are the...

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

Trolls telling us that freenet's only use is for kiddyporn traders? Their bullshit would be amusing right about now...

Indistinguishable from a real CNN story

[bsdbigot]

Unfortunately, the exact parody in question is not currently available. I did find it interesting that one or more of the commenters (on both sides, mind you) suggested that the story was too real and thus unable to distinguish as parody. I fail to see how this is DMCA related, though; am I missing something, or wouldn't the blogger have had to defeat some CNN protection mechanism or be releasing information about protection processes at CNN to be guilty of a DMCA violation? (I'm too lazy to go read the DMCA, again, so somebody just tell me, please)

I think that libel would be a better case for CNN to make; certainly they are aware of what happened to Diebold recently? It would certainly make me think twice before seeking relief under DMCA.

The blogger should have done this parody on CBS, instead. Oh, wait, lying about and manufacturing information, nevermind. Then it really would be indistinguishable from real life.

Re:Indistinguishable from a real CNN story

[dougmc]

I think that libel would be a better case for CNN to make;

Yes, but to get a site taken down for libel, you have to go to court and get a temporary restraining order (which might be hard to do) until the real court date -- it's not as nice, fast and easy as a DMCA takedown order.

In any event, as another poster suggested, the DMCA covers copyright, not trademarks (yet the letter mentions trademarks, you'd think the CNN lawyers would know better.) Like you, I can't see the site, but I can guess that a

Re:Indistinguishable from a real CNN story

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's a mirror:
http://moorelies.com/extras/CNNpoll.html

Re:Indistinguishable from a real CNN story

[Alsee]

I fail to see how this is DMCA related, though; am I missing something, or wouldn't the blogger have had to defeat some CNN protection mechanism or be releasing information about protection processes at CNN to be guilty of a DMCA violation?

The DMCA is a big law with several horribly dysfuctional sections. The DMCA is generally equated with the anti-circumvention provisions, but in this case they are discussing the internet TakeDown process. Someone can file an essentially bogus TakeDown notice and have an

CNN is right, but for the wrong reasons

[DDumitru]

If you look at the page on a mirror and examine is closely, it looks like the source HTML came straight from a "real" CNN page and the new story was cut and pasted in. Even the ads are real.

So, technically, the parody site does violate the copyright of CNN for the HTML "code" on the page. This is more than just layout as it includes javascript and even content management comments. Even the links were copied intact so that they are now broken. Basically, a lazy parody site that would not take the time to create an "original" parody and just cut and pasted instead.

Now, I still think that CNN is being incredibly "stupid" in pursueing this. I also think that the DMCA is dumb (on a lot of grounds in addition to) not requiring that the nature of an infringement be specified in a complaint.

So I think thenationaldebate just needs to be a little less sloppy and not just use "save as" with other peoples web sites. Make it look like who you are parodying, but write it yourself.

Why DMCA?

[brunes69]

The DMCA applies only to cases whereby an encryption / obfuscation method was broken in order to facilitate copyright infringement. If there is no encryption involved, there is no need for the DMCA as standard copyright law applies.

Regardless of the merits of the case or not, it is a cut and dried copyright case. It has nothing to do with the DMCA whatsoever, since the page is not encrypted. Seems like whoever filed the complaint has no clue what they are doing.

Re:Why DMCA?

[EtherMonkey]

DMCA applies only to cases whereby an encryption / obfuscation method was broken

No, that is not true. Have you actually RTF-Legislation? Perhaps you should take a peek at Digital Millenium Copyright Act of 1998 [copyright.gov], paying particular attention to Title II, where it establishes liability limits for service providers that follow the new rules. Among these rules is that the service provider "in the instance of a notification of claimed infringement as described in paragraph (3), responds expeditiously to r

Legitimacy?

[Undefined Parameter]

We keep seeing stories about abuses of the DMCA on slashdot, but I am left wondering if there are cases where the DMCA has been used fairly, and if so, how many.

I know it's off-topic, but I am curious.

~UP

Re:Legitimacy?

[Penguinoflight]

Well, to think of the DMCA being used fairly, you'd have to at least acknolege it as law. Personally I think the DMCA was used to get around constitutional amendment rights in the persuit of tougher copywrite laws. I think many would say that for this reason, the DMCA can not be used fairly.

CNN has been a potty mouth recently

[ravenspear]

I mean, just look at the type of content [pornolize.com] they are trying to pass off as "news."

C&D Letters Are Not A Creature Of The DMCA

[John Hasler]

> Big corporate media also likes to use the DMCA
> to shut down web sites.

Copyright owners could send cease and desist letters in the absence of the DMCA. The difference is that without the DMCA they could also sue the site operator even if he took the purportedly infringing material down immediately.